What this chromolume accomplishes that others often do not: it creates roughly an equivalent of the painting, at least in terms of visible effort, artistry and vision. The vision thing most critical. In the original, it was hard to tell whether the show wanted us to recognize the second George as a true iconoclast, or someone whose work is a pale, diluted use of the artist's DNA (that's shorthanded). What this majestic, eye-popper of a chromolume suggests: the artistry is absolute, handed down, realized anew. For my money, it makes this second act somehow more grounded, this second George more valid as a descendant. Just my response, whether intended or not. Some feel it's too much for the lean n'mean production. But actually, it's just the visual surprise that the show needs to make the elements in the second act cohesive. And it's a beaut of a second act, especially with the glorious Ashford Marie, my favorite (and I loved the others).
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Auggie27 said: "What this chromolume accomplishes that others often do not: it creates roughly an equivalent of the painting, at least in terms of visible effort, artistry and vision.
"
That's your opinion. I think the previous revival was a lot more cohesive and spectacular in the way to show an updated view of the same work of art.
Listen, I don't take my clothes off for anyone, even if it is "artistic". - JANICE
Glad that this thread had "huge spoiler" in the title, as I avoided reading it before I saw the show. The only thing I knew about the show before was that it was connected to the Seurat painting in the Art Institute. The show was great for many reasons, but what Auggie27 said about the chromolume was spot on.
And that Red Hot Chili Pepper video is cool, but what's done with the technology at the Hudson is even better, I think. It was fun to look up at the mechanisms in the ceiling and think "hmm I wonder if that has anything to do with that weird thread on BWW about chromo-something."